-Caveat Lector-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
�Lawyers are amoral by definition and necessity, and as such should not be
making the rules for the rest of society to live by.
<snip>
I contend that we can do without 95% of the minutia many laws have evolved
into largely because lawyers write them. Again we have courts to resort to
when necessary.
<snip>
I have full confidence in my fellow (non-lawyer) citizens to maintain a
system
that will meet our needs as well (or better) as our current one had up until
the last 30 years or so, about when the legal profession proliferated
uncontrollably and the ENTITY that is the legal profession began tweaking
the
system to protect itself via legislation.
I find it helpful to think of the legal community as a Living Organism (An
organism's highest duty is to survive) where the individual cells go about
doing their own thing and are not (necessarily) aware of the survival
purpose
of the Organism or how it manipulates its environment for its own purpose.
Nor
do they see their contribution to that manipulation or how it may damage
others outside their environment.
Incidentally, the "Organism Theory" (OT as I call it) works well to explain
bureaucracies and other seemingly senseless or contradictory ENTITIES. I
always got bogged down trying to make sense of them until I came up with the
OT. I was focusing on the individual parts and missing "The Big Picture".
+++++++++
I don't particularly care for lawyers myself, even though I happen to be
one, as are some of my very good friends. I find this statement to be
totally asinine. Amoral by whose definition? It's not lawyers per se who
are to blame for "making the rules for the rest of society to live by" (as
though lawyers are not themselves a part of that society); it's the belief
of the public that legislation is the answer to everything. There was a
time when a person could learn the law simply by working as an apprentice to
a practicing attorney to find out how to research judicial precedents and
making a cogent argument before a judge and jury about equity and fairness,
coupled with legal consistency. Not so any more. Law no longer consists of
well-reasoned opinions based on the study of jurisprudence and justice.
Everything is statutory (intricately detailed) or even more detailed in the
form of administrative regulations. No lawyer can keep up with all the
changes in the law. A person who wants to fight for justice finds himself
trapped in a quagmire of meaningless verbiage.
The problem is greater than the fact that laws are written and interpreted
by men and women trained to speak and write in a particular style. The real
problem is the microcosm mentality which overlooks the Big Picture, the
historical perspective. That problem is endemic in every facet of American
life today. In Texas the State Bar this year increased the mandatory
continuing legal education requirement for ethics from one to three hours a
year. That means we have to attend seminars analyzing the code of
professional ethics, which are silly rules passed to control how lawyers
deal with their clients. The reason this seems necessary to the powers that
be is that most people don't know the difference between right and wrong;
they don't have the vaguest idea about honesty, truth or fairness. So
somebody decided to write rules that set up a standard of behavior. The
more rules there are, the easier it is to selectively enforce them against
enemies of those in power.
Without that system of detailed statutory law, this contrived impeachment
would not be taking place. The inquiry is not about morality, perjury,
obstruction of "justice" or anything else other than raw power politics and
gamesmanship. It is selective manipulation of rules of conduct to advance a
particular agenda. If this inquiry was really concerned with justice, we'd
be hearing about what went on at Mena. But then that would bring up the
CIA's role in the crack-cocaine trafficking which was so easily swept under
the rug in San Jose. Even with Lawrence Walsh's Iran-Contra report
detailing the crimes of the Reagan-Bush cabinet, there was the Big Pardon,
and then everyone forgot all about what really happened and who did what.
The acts of those men were traitorous, and they were all let off. Those
guys weren't lawyers; they were engineers, businessmen, and most of all
securities peddlers. The word "attorney" simply means a person who acts on
behalf of someone else; an agent. The biggest problem with lawyers is that
they believe in the adversary process--that they represent the person who
pays them to the best of their ability. Do you seriously think your
proposal would keep the vested interests, who don't want their interests
divested, from finding someone else to protect them?
What's ironic about your entire article is that you're trying to do exactly
what you're ranting against--writing insipid legislation that doesn't really
address the evil but just further complicates things by putting another
meaningless law on the books.
MHO,
Linda
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
